IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.2002 of 2025 State of Odisha …. Appellant Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA -versus- Nrusingha Charan Pradhan & another …. Respondents Mr. K.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate being assisted by D.K. Mohanty, Advocate (For Respondent No.1) CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 18.05.2026 05. This Intra-Court Appeal by the State and its functionaries seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 02.01.2025, whereby Respondent-Employee’s W.P.(C) No.20425 of 2020 having been favoured, the following relief has been conferred on him:- “15. Thus it is seen from the above principles decided in ‘Arati Nanda’’s case that there cannot be any doubt to count the date of appointment of the Petitioner from the date of appointment of Ananta Charan Biswal for experience and qualifying service for the purpose of pension and for the same, the authorities has to act for granting him pensionary benefits as per OCS Pension Rules and Old General Provident Fund (Odisha) Rules 1938. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to fix the date of appointment of the Petitioner in the select list above Ananta Charan Biswal (Opposite Party No.4) for such purpose of experience and qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 2. After service of notice, the Respondent-Employee, having entered appearance through his counsel, vehemently resists the Appeal, making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Respondent-Employee submits that the relief accorded to his client was in terms of Arati Nanda’s case decided by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1973 of 1995 disposed off on 12.08.1996. ‘Arati Nanda’ decision having been put in challenge before a Co-ordinate Bench, came to be affirmed and further challenge by the State in SLP No.12730 of 2011 met the same fate on 11.04.2014. Lastly, he adds that there being no challenge whatsoever to the Tribunal’s order in his client’s O.A. No.1709 of 1997 made on 08.01.1998, it has attained finality and therefore, on the principle of parity whatever benefit has been accorded to ‘Arati Nanda’, as of necessity, has to be extended to his client. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: 3.1. In the OPSC selection process, a Merit-cum-Select List came to be prepared and published on 18.04.1988, wherein Respondent-Employee’s name figured at Serial No.787, which is a bit below Arati Nanda’s name. In Arati Nanda’s case, the Tribunal observed as under: “10. xxx .. .. xxx .. .. In such circumstance, it is not possible to give direction to State Government to appoint her as a Junior Clerk. However, Respondent is given direction to appoint applicant if a vacancy is available. If no vacancy is available, the same has to be created to give appointment to the applicant. She will have to wait for the same. No sooner applicant is given appointment, she will get her position in seniority just above the person appointed below her in the merit list. For all purposes that would be the date of her appointment. But she will not be entitled to any salary or other benefit of service except that the period will be considered for her experience and qualifying service for purpose of pension. She will not get benefits of earned leave or increments for the period. But in case she is entitled to the same or higher salary in the scale as per service rules, the same shall be notionally fixed. xxx .. .. xxx .. ..” 3.2. As is forthcoming from the record of the case, the relief granted to ‘Arati Nanda’ has been extended to the Respondent- Employee in O.A. No.1709 of 1997 disposed off vide order dated 08.01.1998. Since the reasoning and the relief in ‘Arati Nanda’ has attained imprimatur at the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same being the substratum of the impugned order, learned counsel for the Respondent-Employee is justified in seeking dismissal of this Appeal on the principle of parity, more particularly, when no challenge whatsoever was laid to the order of the Tribunal made in his client’s O.A. No.1709 of 1997. 3.3. In Arati Nanda’s case, specifically the appointment and placement in the Seniority List are spoken up at para-10 of Tribunal’s order in her O.A. No.1973 of 1995. She was accorded seniority at Serial No.1082 and the Respondent-Employee herein having been appointed on 02.01.2015, i.e., after the disposal of the case in SLP (C) No.12730 of 2011 on 11.04.2014, was given ranking 787. Simple arithmetic would show that the Respondent- Employee is obviously senior to ‘Arati Nanda’. Therefore, learned Single judge has rightly structured the impugned order, regardless of the date of appointment. Absolutely, no explanation is forthcoming from the side of Appellant-State, as to why the Merit List of 18.04.1988 was not finalized for more than a decade. Ordinarily, Select List of the kind has to be operated normatively within one year; that has not happened here. Thus, there is culpability attributable to the Appellant-State. The contention of Mr. Panda, learned AGA that operation of the Select List was delayed because of an avalanche of litigations, hardly constitutes an explanation in all those litigations, where State is the loser. 3.4. The last contention of Mr. Panda that Seniority List once prepared and operated cannot be lightly interfered, inasmuch as that would result into displacement of others, which would not augur well to the administration, again is difficult to agree with. Such a displacement argument has no scope, inasmuch as the Respondent-Employee has already retired from service on 31.05.2023 and giving a notional placement in the Seniority List in the circumstances would not affect anyone. We, by way of abundant caution, make it clear that the relief granted by virtue of impugned order shall not displace any one’s placement in the Seniority List. In the above circumstances, this Appeal fails with a direction to the Appellant to give effect to the impugned order of the learned Single Judge within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks, since the Respondent-Employee has already retired from service. Cost reluctantly made easy. (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay/Sarbani Designation: Junior Stenographer